Why can’t you be more polite, and stop questioning our integrity and science?
We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence
Why can’t you be more polite, and stop questioning our integrity and science?
Who can forget the classic confrontation between Humphrey Bogart and Alfonso Bedoya in “Treasure of the Sierra Madre.” It’s now being reprised in living color, featuring banditos from East Anglia, Penn State, Washington and the UN.
“We’re Federales,” they tell us. “You know, climate police. Evidence? We ain’t got no evidence. We don’t need no evidence. We don’t have to show you any stinkin’ evidence.
“Hold your tongue, hombre. We ain’t trying to do you any harm. Why don’t you try to be a little more polite? Why don’t you just throw us a little more money, and stop questioning our integrity and science?”
The United States alone has spent over $30 billion on alarmist “climate science” over the past 20 years – plus another $35 billion on renewable energy – based on the banditos’ tales of global warming catastrophe, if we don’t slash fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions.
However, instead of solid, reproducible scientific evidence, the bandito scientists offered hypotheses, speculation, assumptions, assertions, “hockey stick” graphs, computer models and worst-case scenarios – purporting to demonstrate that CO2 causes planetary warming … and the warming will be cataclysmic.
Their reports were “peer-reviewed” by networks of fellow alarmists who tied every temperature, weather and wildlife anomaly to global warming and carbon dioxide. When challenged, they claimed the “science is settled” and stonewalled requests from experts who did not accept dire predictions of planetary mayhem – and wanted to examine the raw temperature data, computer codes and analyses.
Suddenly, however, the world got a glimpse into the mindset and machinations of these tax-funded catastrophists. Thousands of emails revealed systematic, concerted collusion to conceal and delete data, manipulate temperature trends that contradicted predictions of dangerous warming, stifle debate, and pressure scientific journals to publish only alarmist studies … and exclude dissenting analyses.
This fraudulent science is the basis for congressional cap-tax-and-trade legislation, EPA’s pronouncement that CO2 “endangers” human health and welfare, and the new global governance treaty being debated in Copenhagen. The actions will result in huge taxes on energy use, reduced liberties and living standards, millions of lost jobs, and a massive transfer of wealth from energy-consuming families and businesses to governments and their allies.
The proposed Copenhagen treaty authorizes the “transfer of technical and financial resources” from developed countries to developing countries, to help them address climate change impacts allegedly caused by hydrocarbon use in industrialized nations. Free or low-cost technology transfers would include electrical generation and pollution control equipment and patents. “Financial resources” would tally $50-200 billion per year, most of it apparently from the United States.
The money would come from fines for noncompliance with CO2 emission rules, a global “carbon tax” on energy use, a new levy on air travel, and “mandatory contributions” as high as 1% of GDP, paid by (formerly) rich developed countries, as new foreign aid for corrupt officials in poor nations.
One would think such actions would be based on rock-solid science. One would be wrong. It’s time to ask the critical question – which the White House, UN, EPA, “mainstream” media (especially the Associated Press, New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN) have refused to consider:
What evidence backs up the terrifying disaster claims, the calls for drastic “solutions” that won’t work, to a crisis that extensive evidence strongly suggests is speculative or even illusory?
Reliable satellite temperature measurements span most of the planet. However, they only cover the last 30 years – and for the past 15 years show stable and then declining temperatures, despite steadily rising CO2 levels. So climate crisis scientists have focused their “research” on ground temperatures.
However, nearly half of the world’s remaining ground-based gauges are in the United States, and cover just 1.8% of the Earth’s surface. Moreover, as meteorologist Anthony Watts has demonstrated, most of those gauges are close to air conditioning exhausts, tarmac, blacktop and other urban heat sources. So they read high, and then are further “adjusted” upward, corrupting climate records, models and analyses.
Most of Siberia’s stations were shut down years ago, leaving that vast frigid region devoid of reliable data, and further tilting average global temperatures upward. Britain’s combined marine and land-based temperatures were “value-added” (aggregated, averaged and manipulated) by its East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) – which then tossed or lost all the original raw data, so no one could check its methodologies, honesty or accuracy. (Try that tactic with your friendly IRS.)
The incomplete, averaged and manipulated ground temperature data were then fed into computer models that reflect our still limited understanding of climate causes and dynamics; assume CO2 is the primary driver in climate change; and poorly analyze the vast, complex, chaotic planetary climate system. The models have never been able to forecast climate accurately, even one year in advance, much less 50 or 100. They can’t reproduce prior years’ climates. They failed to predict the stable and declining temperatures of the past 15 years.
But even that didn’t conjure up the desired “manmade climate crisis.” As a CRU programmer put it, the only way the models can produce “the proper result” is when programmers apply a “very artificial correction,” use “low pass filtering at century and longer time scales,” and “include a load of garbage.”
Back in 1999, CRU director Phil Jones reported that he’d “just used [Penn State climatologist Michael Mann’s] trick … to hide the decline” in average global temperatures. But in October 2009, US climate scientist Kevin Trenberth moaned that alarmists still “can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Nevertheless, “peer reviewed” scientific journals somehow produce “consensus” among “mainstream” scientists, offer “unequivocal” evidence of disastrous manmade global warming – and give the IPCC, White House, EPA and Congress the “proof” they need to justify treaties, laws and regulations that will send energy costs skyrocketing. Compliant media outlets whitewash the email and science scandal, and trumpet the latest alarmist claims. And voila, like Freddy Krueger in “Nightmare on Elm Street,” the predicted warming crisis is back, just in time for Copenhagen.
Evidence tampering like this would get legal cases thrown out of court – and land the manipulators in jail. To use it in advancing economy-wrecking energy policies is criminal.
Just one week ago, President Obama promised jobs summit attendees, “We will do everything we can to bring down the unemployment rate.”
Within hours, he stepped up his arm-twisting for cap-tax-and-trade in the Senate, announced that he was going to Copenhagen to lobby for a new climate treaty, endorsed still more restrictions on producing America’s vital, abundant hydrocarbon resources, and gave EPA the go-ahead to blackmail Congress by decreeing that carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare.
These decisions set the stage for job-killing government control of our energy, economy and lives. If they are implemented, millions of Americans will freeze jobless in the dark.
Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which sponsors the All Pain No Gain education campaign and petition against job-killing global warming policies, and the ClimateDepot website for the latest news and views on climate change. He is also a senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.
My “Interview” with Al Gore
By Alan Caruba
The mainstream media have been trying to find Al Gore in order to interview him about the revelations that the research data supporting “global warming” was cooked—pardon the pun.
Here is my exclusive “interview” with him. You will find the source of his quotes at the end of this Q & A.
Q: Is it true that you lost your bid to become president because of the media?
A: I don’t want to leave the impression that the media’s unwillingness to focus on the global environment was the only reason why the issue failed to ignite serious debate during the campaign.
Q: A lot of people thought you have made too much about an environmental crisis. What do you say to them?
A: For me, the environmental crisis is the critical case in point: now, every time I pause to consider whether I have gone too far out on a limb, I look at the new facts that continue to pour in from around the world and conclude that I have not gone nearly far enough.
Q: Do you still maintain that human beings are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels, driving automobiles, and such?
A: One doesn’t have to travel around the world to witness humankind’s assault on the earth. Human civilization is now the dominant cause of change in the global environment. Humankind is now changing the climate of the entire globe to a degree far greater—and faster—than anything that has occurred in human history.
Q: So, despite the fact that it’s been revealed that scientists in England, America and elsewhere; those affiliated with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were falsifying their data, do you still believe in global warming?
A: The theory of global warming will not be disproved, and the skeptics are vastly outnumbered by former skeptics who now accept the overwhelming weight of accumulated evidence.
Q: So you’re still convinced, eh?
A: Siberia is one of the regions of the world that seems to be warming most rapidly.Q: It’s that bad, eh? What role does capitalism play in all this?
A: The partial blindness of our current economic system is the single most powerful force behind what seem to be irrational decisions about the global environment. Modern industrial civilization, as presently organized, is colliding violently with our planet’s ecological system.
Q: That sounds serious, Al. What can we do?
A: The United Nations might consider the idea of establishing a Stewardship Council to deal with matters relating to the global environment.
Q: But, Al, aren’t the Kyoto Protocols based on the data provided by the United Nations Environmental Program and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? If the IPCC has been using phony scientific data all these years, maybe it isn’t a good idea to turn the environment of the Earth over to the UN. Well, let me finish up by asking how you feel about automobiles?
A: We now know that their cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront.
Q: Really? What do you propose we do about automobiles?
A: It ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five year period.
Q: So capitalism is bad. Automobiles are bad. And human civilization is bad. No disrespect Al, but you sound loonier than a spotted owl.
All the quotes attributed to Al Gore were taken directly from his book, “Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit”, published in 1992. The Earth is in a new, natural cooling cycle that began in 1998.
So far, Al Gore, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his documentary, has not been available for interviews.
For today’s article by Alan Caruba Entitled:
“Cheerful Remarks at the Funeral”
pleas go to:
For today’s article on Global Governance please go to:
“How Obama and the Democrats will Destroy the U.S. Economy” by Alan Caruba at:
Conservative Leaders Meet to Draw Up Battle Plans.
By J. D. Longstreet
A few days after the election, Conservative leaders met, quietly, in Virginia to draw up battle plans for the fight against Obama and the leftward sprint of Congress. This meeting is said to be the first of many such confabs over the next few weeks. It there was just one topic of discussion I would suggest for them it would be whether conservatives should remain in the GOP or break free and form their own party. You can find the story here:
I’m not privy to what was actually talked about, or discussed, but my fervent hope is that they talked of creating a new conservative political party and pulling all conservatives out of the Republican Party.
Yes, once again, the conservatives are the scapegoats of the GOP for their bungling of the 2008 presidential election. From the viewpoint of someone on the outside looking in, the McCain campaign was, perhaps the worse run campaign I have ever seen in my nearly 7 decades on this planet. It was truly awful. The bluebloods and country club set, the liberals and moderates, made the decision to put John McCain on the ticket as a conservative candidate. See, the first thing you have to understand is… conservatives recognize one another. NONE of us recognized John McCain as a conservative, simply because he is not! So, we conservatives balked. The few conservatives who DID vote for McCain held their noses as they did so.
How many times have you read my scribbling in which I have stated, flat out, that it is impossible for a republican candidate to win a presidential election without the conservative vote? Back in the days of my broadcast commentaries it was a constant theme. It remains today as a thread running throughout all my writings. And yet… McCain tried it… and failed. When conservatives pour their time, talent, money, and most importantly, their zeal and fervor, into a campaign that campaign has the forward momentum of a racecar and the strength of a bulldozer. McCain’s campaign had none of this. Observing the McCain Campaign was akin to watching a car rust!
So, if the so called leaders of the conservative movement want to do something worthwhile they can lead us (the conservatives) out of the GOP and into our own party. I am tired of being the whipping boy for the upper crust within the Grand Old Party. I have had it. They don’t know conservatives until they want our vote or our money.
Understand this, my friends on the left, the conservative movement did not lose on November 4th, the moderates and liberal republicans lost. Harry Truman once said: “Give the voters a choice between a fake republican and a real republican and they’ll choose the real republican every time.” Of course, the same thing can be said of democrats. That’s what happened on November 4th. The only conservative near the campaign was Sarah Palin… and by many accounts… she was not welcomed by the McCain Camp.
If conservatives ever hope to climb to the top of a political party, and really control that party, they/we are going to have to have our own party. It’s a simple as that.
I know it’s tough. I know it will take a long time to organize and get candidates on the ballots in all 50 states, but I see no other alternative short of remaining where we are, in the GOP, serving as a doormat for the elite upper crust of blue bloods and those who frequent the country club.
I had rather put my time and talents toward a party with a platform I believe in, and candidates I believe in, and lose every time than continuing to do that for the GOP only to be sneered at, and told to go to the back of the bus.
Conservatives need national leadership at the top. We haven’t a declared leader, at all. There is no single conservative we can rally around and declare the “Top Dog” today. At the moment the conservative movement is like a ship’s crew without a captain/navigator. We can sail the ship but we can’t plot the course.
One thing is crystal clear, however, conservatives cannot remain in the Republican Party and ever expect to have the respect of the party, nor the chance to lead the party on a conservative course. Our only hope to effect conservative change on the US Government is with our own party.
J. D. Longstreet